From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 16 2003 - 21:32:17 GMT
DMB,
DMB said:
Pretending for a moment that we are not talking about a mystical experience, I think you have still have not defeated my objection. Sure, intersubjective agreements exist on a continuum, but the assertion that this can include a community of one stretches the meaning of both "intersubjective" and "agreement". As Pirsig points out, I think quite rightly, having static patterns shared by nobody is the definition of insanity.
Matt:
The pragmatist certainly is stretching the meaning and I think this is exactly the type of pragmatist blurring motion that Pirsig is doing when he describes insanity as effectively a culture of one. I don't know see how you can except his and not mine. The pragmatist makes the distinction between insanity and sanity and continuum between a person who holds many of the same static patterns as everyone else and some who doesn't. This is to say that the more idiosyncratic beliefs you have, the more you slide towards insanity.
DMB said:
Looking out the window to confirm that it is raining can hardly be described as agreement with one's self. That's simply a matter of believing one's eyes.
Matt:
Well, what if you saw something completely crazy, like a 100 foot wave of water rushing towards your house. You saw it, but you can't believe it. Then you'd try and come up with some reasons to justify why you're seeing it, like the LSD you took 30 minutes before.
DMB said:
And writing a book that only the author will read is... a crazy waste of time.
Matt:
But then we remember that Pirsig wrote a book that didn't look like it was going to be published for a long time, yet he continued to write it. He wrote it, not because other people would read it, but because it seemed to be higher Quality then not writing it.
DMB said:
But more importantly, and this is where we stop pretending, all of this is static stuff and is therefore quite irrelevant to the kind of beliefs derived from a mystical experience. By definition we are here talking about that which is NOT static. In fact, the second part of my post, the part you haven't yet responded to, get at this point. I hope you'll try to see what that all about because I think that was far, far more important. As I keep saying, mysticism is the heart and soul of the MOQ. One who avoids this aspect of the MOQ has effectively avoided the MOQ altogether.
Matt:
I think you are still missing the point. I agree with Mark that truth is a static pattern. If that's the case, then the redescription of the subject/object polarity in terms of an intersubjective continuum refers to "the kind of beliefs derived from a mystical experience". Once you have a belief, it is static. On the reading I'm offering, you can't attribute truth or falsity to Dynamic Quality, only to its residue, static patterns. After experiencing Dynamic Quality, you come away with new beliefs. These beliefs are now static patterns. I just don't see what the problem is that you and Paul seem to keep pointing at. I think it might be my explication of the various ways we use the term "Dynamic Quality". As I see it, we use it in at least two separate ways: as a commendatory device ("Galileo was acting Dynamically") and as referring to that which cannot be referred to, i.e. mystic experiences. Though I may redescribe Dynamic Quality and mystics (like fitting poets
under the bill and saying that DQ refers to the openness of language), I don't think I'm ripping the heart and soul out of Pirsig's philosophy. I think I'm playing through some of the consequences.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 16 2003 - 21:39:42 GMT